RT challenges EU ban at Europe's second top court(reuters.com)
reuters.com
RT challenges EU ban at Europe's second top court
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-eu-rt-idINL5N2VB5JK
177 comments
Not defending Russia in general, or in particular russian government. As a French person whose national medias are completely taken over by multinationals (source https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/PPA), not only the ban was a bit laughable in terms of banning propaganda, but also RT France's perspective and journalism was refreshing. It was presenting a skewed version of the world, but if you believe as I do that we won't attain information via objectivity, which is a nebulous concept anyway, but via plurality, RT France's disappearance is a net loss for the French media landscape, and I'm a bit alarmed at the black&whiteness of views I see here and in other places.
>if you believe as I do that we won't attain information via objectivity, which is a nebulous concept anyway, but via plurality, RT France's disappearance is a net loss for the French media landscape
I urge you to reconsider this philosophical standpoint, as it fails under adversarial conditions. It is possible for me to distort your view of the world - make it less accurate - even while telling you only true things. Selective truth can convey negative information. I merely need to have an idea of your pre-existing beliefs, and only correct some of them. If your terminal value is letting people be better informed, as defined by allowing them to make better predictions about the world, then permitting state propaganda outlets to tinker with their minds is a net loss.
Note that the Russian state does not share your viewpoint about free information flow. Can you really consider RT to be a good-faith participant in the public dialogue? If you're looking for a "fair" principle behind banning RT, I would argue that that is a good one - if you censor media, expect your media to be censored likewise.
I urge you to reconsider this philosophical standpoint, as it fails under adversarial conditions. It is possible for me to distort your view of the world - make it less accurate - even while telling you only true things. Selective truth can convey negative information. I merely need to have an idea of your pre-existing beliefs, and only correct some of them. If your terminal value is letting people be better informed, as defined by allowing them to make better predictions about the world, then permitting state propaganda outlets to tinker with their minds is a net loss.
Note that the Russian state does not share your viewpoint about free information flow. Can you really consider RT to be a good-faith participant in the public dialogue? If you're looking for a "fair" principle behind banning RT, I would argue that that is a good one - if you censor media, expect your media to be censored likewise.
Adding 5 propaganda sources to 1 actual new source doesn't improve anything it dilutes it. Plurality in that case only makes things worse. RT and Sputnik are garbage, they weren't great before but they're absolute garbage, rivaling "Infowars" in the USA. However, I think banning RT is bad as well and encourages politicians to ban other news sources that are reliable but opinionated.
To play devil’s advocate, if you could share the name of any actual news sources you deem credible and then give me a minimum number of objectively verifiable examples of incorrect or misinformation you would need to see from them in order to discredit them as an actual news source, I would gladly take up the challenge. Genuine offer.
My point is not to claim that disreputable sources should be treated as legitimate news. Instead it is to point out that some of the most credible news media have been caught spreading fake news to manipulate public opinion when it was politically convenient.
Historically this has happened most often in the run up to or the early stages of war.
“In a time of war the first casualty is the truth” - some guy on the Internet
My point is not to claim that disreputable sources should be treated as legitimate news. Instead it is to point out that some of the most credible news media have been caught spreading fake news to manipulate public opinion when it was politically convenient.
Historically this has happened most often in the run up to or the early stages of war.
“In a time of war the first casualty is the truth” - some guy on the Internet
This is another example that we don't have a real democracy in the UE. It is an illusion of democracy at most.
One of the pillars of democracy, which is separation of powers, is being violated. Only the judicial branch should be able to silence a media, according to the laws created by the citizens trough their representatives in the legislative branch.
What are we seeing here is the executive branch absorbing all the powers, including silencing the media of their choosing.
We think we are better than Russia, but this is not the way.
One of the pillars of democracy, which is separation of powers, is being violated. Only the judicial branch should be able to silence a media, according to the laws created by the citizens trough their representatives in the legislative branch.
What are we seeing here is the executive branch absorbing all the powers, including silencing the media of their choosing.
We think we are better than Russia, but this is not the way.
In my American centric view of the separation of powers, that's not how it'd work at all. The legislature would pass a law allowing the banning of media (ignoring the issue if that's a good idea or not for this hypothetical), the executive would enforce the law by deciding to ban RT and justifying their decision with a written record, and RT could then challenge that decision in court (the judicial branch), and they would decide if the executive followed the law, and didn't make an arbitrary and capricious decision. That seems like what's happening here. You don't want the judiciary deciding these things sua sponte, because they're not an accountable branch.
So if I understand correctly, the legislature can pass a law that explicitly says "we are banning RT" instead of saying something along the lines "We are banning any media that dissiminates war propaganda"? Is there anything in the constitution that forbids legislating against particular groups, persons or institutions? It's a genuine question, I don't really know.
Regarding the judiciary deciding these kind of things. They already decide about many things that impact our lives. I can't see why this case is different.
Regarding the judiciary deciding these kind of things. They already decide about many things that impact our lives. I can't see why this case is different.
A law that singles out a person or group of people is called a bill of attainder, and violates the constitution. So instead, the legislature will write some criteria that they claim is generic but in fact know only applies to a single institution/company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
> Is there anything in the constitution that forbids legislating against particular groups, persons or institutions?
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" [by Congress]. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, [...]"
(A Bill of Attainder is interpreted under current SCOTUS precedent as a law that 1) specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) imposed punishment; and 3) did so without benefit of judicial trial.)
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" [by Congress]. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, [...]"
(A Bill of Attainder is interpreted under current SCOTUS precedent as a law that 1) specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) imposed punishment; and 3) did so without benefit of judicial trial.)
Again from a US perspective. A law may conflict with other laws or even the constitution and still be passed. The Judicial branch can rule that the law is not valid though. So if this law were to be passed in the US, RT could file a challenge to the law and ask a judge to place an injunction, or a hold on enforcement until it is resolved. Judges can grant those based on the harm, likelihood of success, or other interests involved.
> the legislature can pass a law that explicitly says ...
Yes. Laws just reflect what people think is just. People elect legislators to pass absolutely any law people want.
Yes. Laws just reflect what people think is just. People elect legislators to pass absolutely any law people want.
Except those that violate the US Constitution which is the highest law of the land.
(Yes I know that the Patriot Act violates the constitution and has been law for 20+ years, but I still claim it should be stricken down on constitutional grounds)
(Yes I know that the Patriot Act violates the constitution and has been law for 20+ years, but I still claim it should be stricken down on constitutional grounds)
US Constitution is also a law. Everything I said applies to Constitution just as to any other law.
I may be mistaken but I was taught that the Constitution was unlike other US laws as it is the foundational law - i.e. the highest law in the land, superseding all other laws. Any law that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional and can be challenged on that ground so as to be stricken down as null and void. What am I missing?
That's right. It doesn't contradict my comments above.
What about the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution that specifically protects freedom of the press. Wouldn’t such legislation or executive orders be unconstitutional?
This is a complete misreading of the separation of powers. The legislature create the law (ban certain media), the executive implements the law (sends the police to shut down the offices/servers), and then the judicial branch hear challenges to the whether the law itself created by the legislature is lawful, or whether the executive acted lawfully.
What you are thinking about are warrants, which doesn't apply in this case. Warrants are individual orders that are issued to an officer that allows them to perform certain duties that would otherwise not be allowed, like searching inside a private property or seizing property.
What you are thinking about are warrants, which doesn't apply in this case. Warrants are individual orders that are issued to an officer that allows them to perform certain duties that would otherwise not be allowed, like searching inside a private property or seizing property.
There's no free media in Russia anymore. What had remained - had been shut down. If you want to hear 'the other side' - you already do by listening to Putin.
Democratic countries have a right to defend themselves from propaganda especially from a country that have invaded another.
Democratic countries have a right to defend themselves from propaganda especially from a country that have invaded another.
No, that's not how it works and not an indication of failure of democracy.
Europe does have democracy deficit particularly at the EU level but this is not that.
On a side point, RT is usually not that bad as far as propaganda goes, though some speakers/shows are bad.
I'm not sure that they are actually having much effect in the West. If anything, Tucker Carlson is singlehandedly more responsible for flushing out odd and inconsistent views about Russia than anything (the angle changes daily). RT is just not influential.
Europe does have democracy deficit particularly at the EU level but this is not that.
On a side point, RT is usually not that bad as far as propaganda goes, though some speakers/shows are bad.
I'm not sure that they are actually having much effect in the West. If anything, Tucker Carlson is singlehandedly more responsible for flushing out odd and inconsistent views about Russia than anything (the angle changes daily). RT is just not influential.
Banning RT isn't what free press is about.
They should handle the appeal correctly and act according to the outcome.
The alternative, selective and unlawful censorship, is much worse.
As proven already in Russia.
They should handle the appeal correctly and act according to the outcome.
The alternative, selective and unlawful censorship, is much worse.
As proven already in Russia.
I think it's important to distinguish between opinion and false information.
It's very important to have different opinions represented across all different kind of media, but the opinion should be based on facts or make it very clear that there's not enough evidence in case of speculative posts.
RT, however, actively and knowingly publish false information and opinions based on false information, as ordered by the kremlin. This is dangerous because people can then build their own opinion (or adopt) based on false information.
It's very important to have different opinions represented across all different kind of media, but the opinion should be based on facts or make it very clear that there's not enough evidence in case of speculative posts.
RT, however, actively and knowingly publish false information and opinions based on false information, as ordered by the kremlin. This is dangerous because people can then build their own opinion (or adopt) based on false information.
There are judicial means for controlling this. At least in EU (TBH i don't know about US). You cant publish any kind of crap, the editor will have to answer for it.
But this is a judicial process.
My understanding of this ban was that it was a political move.
But this is a judicial process.
My understanding of this ban was that it was a political move.
No such distinction is necessary. I have a human right to be informed, even when that information is false.
Censorship doesn't just violates RTs rights to inform, but also violates my right to be informed.
Censorship doesn't just violates RTs rights to inform, but also violates my right to be informed.
what's your definition of the word informed?
Being able to read both Galileo's contention that the sun does not move and the church's condemnation of his theory.
Being able to read both the corporate press's arguments in favor of invading Iraq and independent voices critiquing those arguments.
Being able to, in short, inform myself of competing views on an issue.
As Richard Feynman said, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts."
If arguments are obviously wrong, they are easily refuted.
Censorship leads invariably to tyrrany, which is why the USA's bill of rights enshrined the right to free speech and free press as the first and most fundamental guaranteed right.
Freedom of speech truly is the eternally radical idea [1], it seems.
[1] https://www.thefire.org/what-is-the-eternally-radical-idea/
Being able to read both the corporate press's arguments in favor of invading Iraq and independent voices critiquing those arguments.
Being able to, in short, inform myself of competing views on an issue.
As Richard Feynman said, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts."
If arguments are obviously wrong, they are easily refuted.
Censorship leads invariably to tyrrany, which is why the USA's bill of rights enshrined the right to free speech and free press as the first and most fundamental guaranteed right.
Freedom of speech truly is the eternally radical idea [1], it seems.
[1] https://www.thefire.org/what-is-the-eternally-radical-idea/
> If arguments are obviously wrong, they are easily refuted.
Let's assume we live in an idealized world, where everyone could indeed easily refute false information. In this case you're right.
This is unfortunately not the case for many. The US citizens are a good example, Trump can claim voter fraud and continue to do so even if there's zero evidence. This is not an opinion, but false information. However, many people still believe Trumps words, and if they crowd up, storm the capitol and kill police officers, based on false information, then this has nothing todo with freedom of speech.
Let's assume we live in an idealized world, where everyone could indeed easily refute false information. In this case you're right.
This is unfortunately not the case for many. The US citizens are a good example, Trump can claim voter fraud and continue to do so even if there's zero evidence. This is not an opinion, but false information. However, many people still believe Trumps words, and if they crowd up, storm the capitol and kill police officers, based on false information, then this has nothing todo with freedom of speech.
I can receive information.
Informed covers knowing enemy propaganda.
If the press is controlled/funded by the Russian government and has been confirmed to regularly publish fake news as part of Russian propaganda, then the only option is to ban it.
Or ignore it? If a populace cannot even be trusted to hear bad, false information then democracy starts to seem like a bad idea. I don't mean that as an endorsement of any other ideology, but having a populace that can process information without it harming them seems to be a basic pillar of democracy.
This is an important case. Precedence as to whether or not prejudice against freedom of opinion is ok or not is at stake.
I hope the EU will think seven times before making a decision.
I hope the EU will think seven times before making a decision.
Very ironic for a country that has banned almost any form of independent media that isn't RT, to then complain that the EU has banned RT.
Neat! A race to the bottom where each country can adopt every bad idea another country has.
Like all fallacious slippery slopes, the fix here is to simply limit how far down you'll go. So the EU can ban RT, but then (I know this is hard to believe) not shut down all non-state media or stop people on the street to look at their text messages.
'First they came for RT, and I did not speak out because I was not an RT viewer' seems apt here.
Fwiw I've long been surprised it's allowed (for years I mean, unrelated to any current affairs) but I think this thread is an interesting point.
Fwiw I've long been surprised it's allowed (for years I mean, unrelated to any current affairs) but I think this thread is an interesting point.
It's about as inapt as it often is, since nobody is imprisoning or murdering RT.
>"Like all fallacious slippery slopes"
Think about it this way, "is this establishing a precedent"? Slippery Slope is not necessarily a fallacy. It is also one of those things where only time will tell.
Think about it this way, "is this establishing a precedent"? Slippery Slope is not necessarily a fallacy. It is also one of those things where only time will tell.
The idea of the slippery slope fallacy is that you can't just identify a sequence of causal connections; you can prove anything that way. You have to present evidence that the sequence of horrible things you predict will actually occur. Just identifying a slope (or an oil slick) isn't enough.
Obviously, the argument I responded to is invalid on its own; we all intuitively understand that the EU is not going to end up managing its media the same way Russia does in some weird tit-for-tat, because Russia and the EU countries don't share the same values.
You could argue otherwise, but you'd be making an extraordinary claim, and the standard of proof you'd need to bring would be, consequently, much higher.
Obviously, the argument I responded to is invalid on its own; we all intuitively understand that the EU is not going to end up managing its media the same way Russia does in some weird tit-for-tat, because Russia and the EU countries don't share the same values.
You could argue otherwise, but you'd be making an extraordinary claim, and the standard of proof you'd need to bring would be, consequently, much higher.
>"No doubt, one can hardly agree with the opinion that this is some sort of censorship," Peskov said, according to Russian state media. "This sphere - the sphere of fake news - insults and so on, is under strict regulation in many countries of the world, even in European states. This undoubtedly has to be done in our country."
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/18/704600310/russia-criminalizes...
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/18/704600310/russia-criminalizes...
RT is not independent media, nice try though. Keep fighting the good fight for fascism.
conflating "banning all independent media" and "banning a media outlet that repeatedly spreads lies" is the exact thing that the liars, hucksters, charlatans, conspiracy theorists all want you to do. Do you really honestly believe that responding with consequences to people doing bad things is the same thing as doing the bad thing? We teach children this but nobody cries foul when a child is put in time out for hitting their classmate.
>""banning a media outlet that repeatedly spreads lies"
If I had the power, I would absolutely do this! But I suspect your list of media outlets that spread lies repeatedly is quite different from my own. Would you still support my power to censor as such?
If I had the power, I would absolutely do this! But I suspect your list of media outlets that spread lies repeatedly is quite different from my own. Would you still support my power to censor as such?
So by this logic the EU should ban al jazeera.
I'm not terribly familiar with al jazeera, but aren't they largely independent? I mean sure, a lot of middle eastern countries use them as their mouth piece, but I'm not aware of them being state sponsored media. Just because their reporting slant and opinions aren't always western aligned doesn't make them state sponsored propaganda like RT most definitely is.
No, they're funded by the Qatari government
It would be quite hard to argue that we're better if we would simply start doing the same.
There’s freedom of opinion and then there’s allowing an enemy state at war with your ally to broadcast propaganda freely in your country. Fighting for and allowing the latter is absolutely idiotic.
Wouldn't you agree that before the soothing and after the shooting starts are completely different realities?
Once the affiliates start killing people the media becomes propaganda. Even if it was a propaganda before, you had the chance to challenge it and keeping it free is useful but once the shooting starts keeping it free means that they can coordinate with their murder professionals to sway support and ease their job.
IMHO, at time of war, banning communication channels of hostile forces is a fair game.
Once the affiliates start killing people the media becomes propaganda. Even if it was a propaganda before, you had the chance to challenge it and keeping it free is useful but once the shooting starts keeping it free means that they can coordinate with their murder professionals to sway support and ease their job.
IMHO, at time of war, banning communication channels of hostile forces is a fair game.
The EU is not at war with anyone.
It doesn't matter. EU is actively taking sides in an armed conflict.
Yes, so what if it is? Like I said the EU is not at war with anyone, so there’s no need for drastic measures which go against the principles of the union.
If you haven’t noticed, the EU considers press freedom quite important, at least if one were to judge based on the approach towards Hungary or Poland.
If you haven’t noticed, the EU considers press freedom quite important, at least if one were to judge based on the approach towards Hungary or Poland.
I don't agree that it's O.K. to have absolutist press freedoms under occupation. Media has always been part of military operations, you can't afford having military operations conducted on you when tanks are rolling and missiles are being fired and bombs are dropped.
Comparing this situation with the situation in Hungary or Poland is absurd.
Comparing this situation with the situation in Hungary or Poland is absurd.
This is a good action and if I never really watched RT or Sputnik before, now I do, just because it's banned.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.
And how do you find it?
Note that I found the English-speaking RT to be surprisingly neutral on the topic of the war, including the phrases used. Yes, they call it a „special military operation“ and not a war, but the articles could have been from the BBC or the DW. Their op-eds were 4chan tier pro-Putin rants though.
However, Russian-language Russian state media such as Russia24 (vesti.ru) or similar (which I can only consume through Google translate but I believe Google to be fairly good here) are completely pure pro-Putin rants, not just the op-eds. They're cherrypicking topics, being very one-sided and over-all give the feeling of living in a completely different universe.
Curious to see somebody else‘s opinion.
Note that I found the English-speaking RT to be surprisingly neutral on the topic of the war, including the phrases used. Yes, they call it a „special military operation“ and not a war, but the articles could have been from the BBC or the DW. Their op-eds were 4chan tier pro-Putin rants though.
However, Russian-language Russian state media such as Russia24 (vesti.ru) or similar (which I can only consume through Google translate but I believe Google to be fairly good here) are completely pure pro-Putin rants, not just the op-eds. They're cherrypicking topics, being very one-sided and over-all give the feeling of living in a completely different universe.
Curious to see somebody else‘s opinion.
I usually check news on guardian, RT, aljazeera and timesofindia to get better overview of the world. Each of them are biased in some respects and neutral to others. Obviously most of them are heavily biased towards their own country.
However I have never seen as much propaganda, hyper-nationalism and just vague (or outright false) reporting from western media as the current Russia-Ukraine war.
Till 2016, US congress had banned from supplying weapons to Ukraine and now suddenly it switched sides.
Article from 2018 on the US switch: https://thegrayzone.com/2018/04/07/the-us-is-arming-and-assi...
However I have never seen as much propaganda, hyper-nationalism and just vague (or outright false) reporting from western media as the current Russia-Ukraine war.
Till 2016, US congress had banned from supplying weapons to Ukraine and now suddenly it switched sides.
Article from 2018 on the US switch: https://thegrayzone.com/2018/04/07/the-us-is-arming-and-assi...
People are overcomplicating things
RT ban is commercial in nature (reciprocity). All other news orgs have been banned (de facto) from Russia
People who think there should be no limits to free speech have never been the subject of its downsides.
RT ban is commercial in nature (reciprocity). All other news orgs have been banned (de facto) from Russia
People who think there should be no limits to free speech have never been the subject of its downsides.
I wonder when the free and uncensored US media will report that America has been giving a $200,000-apiece Javelins to Ukraine in the past 8 years and suddenly act like it was surprised by the war! The Ukrainian MPs are bragging that they have the largest stash of Javelins in Europe!
If you want to know when media reported something you can just go Google it and stop pretending to wonder.
MSM resports it now; it hasn't during the past 8 years.
That's also wrong, unless you want to claim WSJ, ABC news, Fortune.com and CNBC (just what I could find in 2 minutes) aren't "MSM"? Yes, of course it didn't get the same attention it does today, but I don't think "they didn't make a big deal out of every arms deal the US makes" is that much of a criticism.
Again, why do people keep claiming "wasn't reported" for things you can just go look up?! "I don't remember seeing reporting" is not the same as "wasn't reported"...
Again, why do people keep claiming "wasn't reported" for things you can just go look up?! "I don't remember seeing reporting" is not the same as "wasn't reported"...
Yeah, "reported" in the scope of bashing Trump, not the real scale of this and that we're preparing Ukraine for a war with Russia, which is now beyond the obvious - America was stirring this mess for ages! And now we're acting surprised! I guess, Biden did what he was planning throughout his career!
By banning Russian media and TV stations, the West gave a convenient precedent for Russia to do the same.
This right here.
Also the US invasions on Afghanistan, Iraq Libya Syria.
It all plays into the Russian justification of their attack.
It's of course more complex.
It's of course more complex.
I really enjoy the US talking about international law and violations. Remember when Obama said about himself "I'm very good at killing"? People are pulled by the nose by media - nobody shed a tear for the civilian Yemenis killed by US drones, or for the Libyans, Iraqis, and Syrians - maybe because they were not white as I really don't have any other explanation! Now, the US media talks about "slaughtering Ukrainians". The magnitude of death is the Middle East was in the millions! You can't compare these at all! Yet, one leads to crazy sanction and global anger and the other was like "Whatever! They probably deserve it!" People talk about "the regime" in Russia, but conveniently ignore the actual regimes in allies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc. Didn't the Saudi prince slaughter, cut in pieces, and dissolve in acid recently a US journalist in Turkey? Of course, they did, and what was our response: "It's okay as we don't get postal on allies!" What's happening in Ukraine is terrible, but America shares the guilt as well! And I don't hear: "Oh, I messed up!" from Biden, who thought-out his career has been planning this!
The irony of the Russian government citing legal protections while at the same time breaking international law
It’s self serving, but also the correct course of action under the law.
If someone robs a bank the bank can’t unilaterally confiscate their money if they had an account with the bank.
If someone robs a bank the bank can’t unilaterally confiscate their money if they had an account with the bank.
> If someone robs a bank the bank can’t unilaterally confiscate their money if they had an account with the bank.
Are you sure this is true, or are you just making it up?
Are you sure this is true, or are you just making it up?
I think the key is "unilaterally confiscate". In the real world I'm sure a court would rule in either a criminal or civil suit that the bank is entitled to money from the bank robber as restitution. In which case, the judge would probably allow the funds in that account to be confiscated.
Are you sure about that, or are you just making it up?
It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?
It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?
Confiscating money from an account and refusing to serve a customer are two completely different things, I don’t think conflating them is helping your case at all.
Sure, I get that.
So far this thread is devoid of any factual evidence of what banks can and cannot do with your money, so I give up. Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future
So far this thread is devoid of any factual evidence of what banks can and cannot do with your money, so I give up. Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future
>"Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future"
>"It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?"
You're essentially doing the same thing by asserting that banks do have the right to seize account holders' funds and then expecting evidence to the contrary.
There is a big difference between providing service - and suspending it for whatever reasons they stipulate - and literally just confiscating the account holder's money. I'm certain US Banking laws prohibit banks from doing this. I don't have a citation for you, but you can go digging if you need one.
But here's a related concept that sheds some light on my stance. There are all sorts of unclaimed and lost property laws across the US where people have left money in bank accounts that have lapsed. Those people are still entitled to withdraw their money. The bank does not have the right to just take it. Even after a few decades, people can still claim the account funds. If no claim is ever made, I believe that money goes to the government's general fund - depending on the state.
>"It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?"
You're essentially doing the same thing by asserting that banks do have the right to seize account holders' funds and then expecting evidence to the contrary.
There is a big difference between providing service - and suspending it for whatever reasons they stipulate - and literally just confiscating the account holder's money. I'm certain US Banking laws prohibit banks from doing this. I don't have a citation for you, but you can go digging if you need one.
But here's a related concept that sheds some light on my stance. There are all sorts of unclaimed and lost property laws across the US where people have left money in bank accounts that have lapsed. Those people are still entitled to withdraw their money. The bank does not have the right to just take it. Even after a few decades, people can still claim the account funds. If no claim is ever made, I believe that money goes to the government's general fund - depending on the state.
This analogy isn't very helpful imo. You're trying to take over the bank indefinitely, not rob it once. Money is too different from news.
But the bank can freeze the account until a court makes a decision.
Banks have a wide range of reasons they can freeze an account for.
Banks have a wide range of reasons they can freeze an account for.
they could confiscate the amount you "withdrew"!
That decision would have to rendered by a judge. The bank can’t just “take the money back.”
Can you refer to the relevant law? From recent vague memory I believe anyone can take their stolen property back without court order.
if they can identify you they're perfectly within their rights to take it out of your account balance
I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm wondering. What actual law, that they recognize, are they breaking? They don't recognize the ICC, they didn't appear at the ICJ, what's the legal recourse here?
Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter says "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" but is that enforceable?
Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter says "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" but is that enforceable?
> Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter says "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" but is that enforceable?
Yes, ultimately by states taking action under Article 51 of the Charter, if all else fails.
EDIT: But, while the Security Council veto Russia wields can block the main UN enforcement mechanism, there has been a General Assembly fallback since 1950 via the “Uniting for Peace” process; while the UNGA has acted using this process already in the crisis without explicitly calling for enforcement action, there is nothing preventing it from revisiting it with stronger terms.
Yes, ultimately by states taking action under Article 51 of the Charter, if all else fails.
EDIT: But, while the Security Council veto Russia wields can block the main UN enforcement mechanism, there has been a General Assembly fallback since 1950 via the “Uniting for Peace” process; while the UNGA has acted using this process already in the crisis without explicitly calling for enforcement action, there is nothing preventing it from revisiting it with stronger terms.
Thank you. It does sound like this is dependent on the security council which Russia is a permanent member of, able to veto anything basically. What a messed up situation.
Neither independent Article 51 action by states nor action called by the General Assembly under Uniting for Peace are dependent on Security Council action (in fact, both are dependent, legally, on Security Council inaction on the covered matter, which is all a veto power can guarantee.)
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. Obviously the Russians do not recognize any law that would prevent them from invading Ukraine. If they did, they would not be invading Ukraine. The invasion is illegal whether or not they recognize the laws that render it illegal.
With respect to the UN charter, it's enforceable in the sense that any international regulation is: if you care enough you can get your guns and shoot the other guy if he doesn't follow the regulation. But otherwise, no.
With respect to the UN charter, it's enforceable in the sense that any international regulation is: if you care enough you can get your guns and shoot the other guy if he doesn't follow the regulation. But otherwise, no.
I'm not drawing anything here. I'm just genuinely curious how international relations work in a case like this where one guys just invades other countries. The reaction I'm getting here is weird, as if my asking that question somehow makes me sympathize with that guy? Not at all, I just need to know how our world works so I understand what's going in.
The comment I was responding to was claiming they were breaking international law and my hope was that there is an avenue to enforce that in the long term.
The comment I was responding to was claiming they were breaking international law and my hope was that there is an avenue to enforce that in the long term.
> I'm just genuinely curious how international relations work in a case like this where one guys just invades other countries.
The lawyers answer is relevant here: It depends.
Is the illegal attacker the US or a major NATO partner? Nothing much happens.
Is it an attack between third-world-countries? Noone really cares.
Is the attacker a major opponent of "the West"? Well, we're seeing this play out right now.
The lawyers answer is relevant here: It depends.
Is the illegal attacker the US or a major NATO partner? Nothing much happens.
Is it an attack between third-world-countries? Noone really cares.
Is the attacker a major opponent of "the West"? Well, we're seeing this play out right now.
Guns are the only mechanism to enforce laws affecting sovereigns. Actually, to a first approximation, force and power underlie all laws, not just international ones. Ultima ratio regum. The final authority is physical or economic compulsion.
You quoted the law they are breaking, then you moved the goal-post to include enforcability. That is dishonest and wrong, and I think you should delete your comment.
Where is that law enforced is all I'm asking.
here. international laws are enforced by the actions of other governments.
It is enforceable, see especially articles 41 and 42. With the caveat of the veto power of the five permanent members.
Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Thank you! That would only work though if this affected a non-member or non-permanent member of the security council, given that permanent members have veto power.
That problem was noted during the pendency of the crisis that became the Korean War; while UN action there was facilitated by Soviet absence from the relevant Security Council session, it was realize that that wasn't a reliable safeguard against deadlock in important situations, hence, notwithstanding the Security Council’s primary role in international peace and security, the UN General Assemyin 1950 adopted a framework for it to deal with such issues when the primary organ was incapable due to disunity, via the “Uniting for Peace” process.
[deleted]
> What actual law, that they recognize, are they breaking?
The current ICJ court case is about the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was signed and ratified by both parties. If that is proven, that is the law they are breaking.
The current ICJ court case is about the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was signed and ratified by both parties. If that is proven, that is the law they are breaking.
Clearly it is not enforced, which tells everything about UN...
RT spread misinformation and propaganda for 10+ years without any major consequences, if any at all. Are they really expecting the EU to let them go on? This seems like a marketing stunt rather than an actual challenge.
I sometimes watch Russia TV France, I find the programs of high quality and very balanced. They show different perspective to both internal and foreign affairs.I can't speak to other branches.
RT Latin America. It has been over 10 days since the invasion of Ukraine started, but RT is still not reporting this. They are still talking about Krimea, the separatist states, imperialism, etc.
Also, the bitcoin topic coverage is rather sensationalistic.
I can't feel respect for anybody who speaks in favor of Nicolas Maduro, or Vladimir Putin. RT is in that cathegory.
Also, the bitcoin topic coverage is rather sensationalistic.
I can't feel respect for anybody who speaks in favor of Nicolas Maduro, or Vladimir Putin. RT is in that cathegory.
Is imperialism not a pretty relevant topic given the situation?
Bitcoin is sensational.If stock markets moved as fast as bitcoin, bloomberg journalists would be a fest show.
I can't feel respect for anybody who speaks in favor of any of our current leaders.
Bitcoin is sensational.If stock markets moved as fast as bitcoin, bloomberg journalists would be a fest show.
I can't feel respect for anybody who speaks in favor of any of our current leaders.
RT Spanish mix quality content with the odd propaganda piece. It's actually the same technique right-wing / left-wing extremists use on social media to gain followers, and it works.
At least they mix in quality content.If you can name some major media that only pump quality content, I'm in. (quality content not being the other side propaganda that is)
Have you ever watched it?! I find it pretty balanced and covering areas, which US media conveniently avoids!
It is extraordinary to me that we in the free world consider that censoring the Russians is how we are going to 'bring them to heel'.
If we can't hear their arguments, how can we convince them of the errors of their ways?
We are either cowardly trying to hide from what they are saying, or the narrative is being controlled in order to make sure only "the official truth" is told. Which is as good as having martial law declared - on ourselves.
Given our own proclivity (the West) for telling lies and then murdering millions of innocent people, I think this cynical move is very telling. We are not as free as we think.
Why are "we" the ones who can tell the world "what the Russians want", when we are in fact censoring them at every outlet... why don't we just listen to what the Russians, like - officially, want? What are we actually afraid they will tell us?
If we can't hear their arguments, how can we convince them of the errors of their ways?
We are either cowardly trying to hide from what they are saying, or the narrative is being controlled in order to make sure only "the official truth" is told. Which is as good as having martial law declared - on ourselves.
Given our own proclivity (the West) for telling lies and then murdering millions of innocent people, I think this cynical move is very telling. We are not as free as we think.
Why are "we" the ones who can tell the world "what the Russians want", when we are in fact censoring them at every outlet... why don't we just listen to what the Russians, like - officially, want? What are we actually afraid they will tell us?
Russia has a habit of pushing people out of windows who disagree with them. They have poisoned opposition leaders on foreign soil. They used chemical weapons in Syria. And they sent a few hundred mercenaries to attack a military base knowing full well it was held by US soldiers. Also they just passed a law to punish anti war protesters with 15 years in jail.
The West is by no means perfect. But Russia has been abusing the goodwill of the West for decades with little push back. They finally crossed a line that the West collectively agreed was too far. I personally think we should have put these sanctions on them in 2014, and maybe we could have avoided this war.
The West is by no means perfect. But Russia has been abusing the goodwill of the West for decades with little push back. They finally crossed a line that the West collectively agreed was too far. I personally think we should have put these sanctions on them in 2014, and maybe we could have avoided this war.
None of these reasons justify the repression of free and open media.
You say "free and open media" and refer to RT, which is state sponsored media from RT. Media from a country that kills journalist and bans independent media. You're so angry at the EU for banning state sponsored media. Where is your anger at Russia for killing journalists and banning independent media?
Whataboutism works both ways, come on.
It is OUR access to media that is being censored - it is OUR free media market that is being repressed. Russia isn't doing this to us, we're doing it to ourselves.
YOU say their media is from a country that kills journalists (as does ours) and bans independent media (as does ours) - it can be said about any of the major powers today. This is precisely why we must question what we are being told - but we can't do that if we don't have access to the original sources on the subject.
I don't believe RT propaganda is necessarily going to sway my opinion about anything, any less than CNN would .. but thats a decision I want to make for myself - I don't need autocratic talking heads making it for me.
It is OUR access to media that is being censored - it is OUR free media market that is being repressed. Russia isn't doing this to us, we're doing it to ourselves.
YOU say their media is from a country that kills journalists (as does ours) and bans independent media (as does ours) - it can be said about any of the major powers today. This is precisely why we must question what we are being told - but we can't do that if we don't have access to the original sources on the subject.
I don't believe RT propaganda is necessarily going to sway my opinion about anything, any less than CNN would .. but thats a decision I want to make for myself - I don't need autocratic talking heads making it for me.
> autocratic talking heads
Hold your horses. You are talking about democratically elected governments here. There's nothing autocratic in this action, it is democratic in nature. The courts might still overrule it and require a parliamentary vote or a referendum, and I am almost sure it will pass.
In a way it is similar to children programming. When you turn 18 you don't magically become aware of what is going on. But most regular programming for most people by that age can no longer hurt them or break their psyche. However, footage explicitly designed to fool can instill FUD on many people, possibly even the majority. I think banning outright propaganda machines is justified. Too bad there is no legal framework for that, but it should not prevent an executive action when the need is dire and the intent to violate is obvious.
Hold your horses. You are talking about democratically elected governments here. There's nothing autocratic in this action, it is democratic in nature. The courts might still overrule it and require a parliamentary vote or a referendum, and I am almost sure it will pass.
In a way it is similar to children programming. When you turn 18 you don't magically become aware of what is going on. But most regular programming for most people by that age can no longer hurt them or break their psyche. However, footage explicitly designed to fool can instill FUD on many people, possibly even the majority. I think banning outright propaganda machines is justified. Too bad there is no legal framework for that, but it should not prevent an executive action when the need is dire and the intent to violate is obvious.
Who voted to ban Russian media in the West?
I am sorry for not being more clear, but it is an executive action performed by democratically elected government. It can still be overruled in courts. If it is not, and people of those countries disagree, they can always vote for a different government in the next election.
This is a common democratic process for something that needs to be done urgently when existing legal framework does not allow it, and developing the said framework would take too long.
This is a common democratic process for something that needs to be done urgently when existing legal framework does not allow it, and developing the said framework would take too long.
Cool, tell that to Russia, because the free and open media is being persecuted there
Whoever feel like consuming manure can access RT using a VPN
Whoever feel like consuming manure can access RT using a VPN
No whataboutism, please.
It is our access to media that is being repressed.
We no longer have access to media that we used to. WE are losing a free and open society, not the Russians.
It is our access to media that is being repressed.
We no longer have access to media that we used to. WE are losing a free and open society, not the Russians.
[deleted]
I'm not sure how listening to Goebbels is useful to convince nazis of the errors of their ways.
I'm not sure I support the banning of RT either, but pretending that RT is anything but pure propaganda is delusional.
I'm not sure I support the banning of RT either, but pretending that RT is anything but pure propaganda is delusional.
There is no such thing as 'pure propaganda'.
There's only things 'our side do not agree with'.
CNN is pure propaganda, too. It is extremely vulnerable to corruption and agitprop outside the normal scope of journalistic duty. But, I think Russians actually are not afraid of tuning into CNN, like Americans are - deadly afraid, it seems - of watching even a minute of RT.
It really seems like mass hysteria, being exploited to ensure only one sides narrative is understood by the world.
There's only things 'our side do not agree with'.
CNN is pure propaganda, too. It is extremely vulnerable to corruption and agitprop outside the normal scope of journalistic duty. But, I think Russians actually are not afraid of tuning into CNN, like Americans are - deadly afraid, it seems - of watching even a minute of RT.
It really seems like mass hysteria, being exploited to ensure only one sides narrative is understood by the world.
There is such thing as propaganda. It's when somebody explicitly controls what you can and what you can't say (among other things). CNN may be biased, sure and I have no problem with that (as with Foxnews), but with RT I have issues with.
But again I'm not sure I support the ban of RT, just on a point of principle and because those bans were already used as rationalizations to close last independent media in Russia.
But again I'm not sure I support the ban of RT, just on a point of principle and because those bans were already used as rationalizations to close last independent media in Russia.
>There is no such thing as 'pure propaganda'.
Why not?
I find this "all opinions are equally valid"-style argument quite astonishing. And while pure censorship is bad, surely so too is the indirect style of censorship enforced by flooding the airwaves with false information to the point where people lose their belief in anything.
Why not?
I find this "all opinions are equally valid"-style argument quite astonishing. And while pure censorship is bad, surely so too is the indirect style of censorship enforced by flooding the airwaves with false information to the point where people lose their belief in anything.
What defines 'pure propaganda' - things that are 100% not what "your side" agrees "the other side thinks"?
There is only propaganda. There's not such a thing as impure propaganda - unless you think there are 'worthy victims' too, hmm ... ?
There is only propaganda. There's not such a thing as impure propaganda - unless you think there are 'worthy victims' too, hmm ... ?
Ah ok, you were just being pedantic. Fair enough.
It's also doesn't come across as a position of strength. More like hysterical reactionary thrashing about.
You clearly haven't used the site. It's very much not pure propaganda. It's not even Breitbart level. Quite a wide range of content. Some good balanced journalism even. That's what makes it effective.
not sure if i ve seen a lot of 'balanced' content. Despite being a russian channel you ll never understand what s happening in russia because it's as if their government has never made any mistake at all. But it's generally a perspective, and watching it helps to understand what kind of propaganda makes most russians support this war
"why don't we just listen to what the Russians, like - officially, want?"
It's not like the Russian government is being deprived of the ability to express its official narrative. It controls the media in Russia, and can freely express itself there.
The world has been globally networked for some time, so it's easy to look at Russian websites in Russia, should anyone wish.
It's not like the Russian government is being deprived of the ability to express its official narrative. It controls the media in Russia, and can freely express itself there.
The world has been globally networked for some time, so it's easy to look at Russian websites in Russia, should anyone wish.
That's not true at all, and I think you're being disingenuous. RT in English used to be an easily accessible channel that provided another point of view for many mainstream, internationally relevant events - and now it is gone, completely.
Extraordinary how blood lust and war hysteria led us to drop our facade as a free, open and honest society so quickly.
Extraordinary how blood lust and war hysteria led us to drop our facade as a free, open and honest society so quickly.
> It's not like the Russian government is being deprived of the ability to express its official narrative. It controls the media in Russia, and can freely express itself there.
"You're not censored, you can always go in your lone cellar and scream your opinion in there".
We're clearly suppressing the Russian side. Not unusual and not necessarily bad in a cold (?) war, but let's not act like it's not happening.
"You're not censored, you can always go in your lone cellar and scream your opinion in there".
We're clearly suppressing the Russian side. Not unusual and not necessarily bad in a cold (?) war, but let's not act like it's not happening.
Even their editor in chief resigned because she was sick of her government's actions and that she had to spread more lies about what they were doing. Maybe that tells something us about RT?
Also - when they ban every outlet of free media in Russia, why should we have to allow to operate and spread lies elsewhere?
Also - when they ban every outlet of free media in Russia, why should we have to allow to operate and spread lies elsewhere?
What arguments are they bringing to the table, exactly? You seem to be quite keen that they can continue broadcasting lies while they invade a sovereign democratic nation. I wonder just what pushback against Russia you do support. It’s not like nobody can get the official RT story in the west if they want to. Unlike Russia, the West hasn’t banned anyone from looking up or sharing Russia’s official line on this whole thing. You’re free to post about the West murdering millions of innocents while Russians are shooting civilians *right now* - https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t9exxk/russians_ki... - so your cries about your speech being threatened feel a bit hollow.
>What arguments are they bringing to the table, exactly?
How will we know if we can't see it?
How will we know if we can't see it?
> What are we actually afraid they will tell us?
It's the wording used... For example "Ban russian oil and gas from our country" sounds like a good idea... "Ban russian oil and gas, pushing energy prices up 50% and costing every citizen $3000 every year in increased prices while causing a real risk of economic collapse" doesn't sound so great...
It's the wording used... For example "Ban russian oil and gas from our country" sounds like a good idea... "Ban russian oil and gas, pushing energy prices up 50% and costing every citizen $3000 every year in increased prices while causing a real risk of economic collapse" doesn't sound so great...
I think you are considering RT journalism, it's not. It is not free to report fact. If it were free to do so I'd agree with you that it is valuable for understanding and for having dialog with Russia. We know RT is not free because of the crackdown of real Russian independent media. The way RT is now just reflects the desires of an autocracy whose stated goals are in opposition to the world order and whose tools are misinformation, violence and terror. Giving them a platform is not helpful.
> I think you are considering RT journalism, it's not. It is not free to report fact.
They are probably as free as Pravda and Izvestia were, i.e. not at all. Life as a journalist worthy of that claim in the new Russian Empire seems to be short and brutal.
But...
I think you are considering CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and Fox, New York Times and Washington Post (etc.) journalism, they're not. They're not free to report facts. The censor doesn't live in the White House but in the editor's office, the board room and all too often on Twitter. Step outside of the lines and you'll find yourself ousted. At least you get to keep your life so the comparison is not wholly accurate but that there's something rotten in the state of the media is clear.
They are probably as free as Pravda and Izvestia were, i.e. not at all. Life as a journalist worthy of that claim in the new Russian Empire seems to be short and brutal.
But...
I think you are considering CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and Fox, New York Times and Washington Post (etc.) journalism, they're not. They're not free to report facts. The censor doesn't live in the White House but in the editor's office, the board room and all too often on Twitter. Step outside of the lines and you'll find yourself ousted. At least you get to keep your life so the comparison is not wholly accurate but that there's something rotten in the state of the media is clear.
Given the crackdown on Russian 'independent' (meaning: western) media came after the RT ban, it is reasonable to expect it happened in retaliation to the RT ban.
Not to mention misinformation is across most media outlets. Not only RT.
What do you gain by hearing Putin's lies that Ukraine is just shelling itself?
People think that they're somehow magically immune to propaganda. You are not. Propaganda is like a virus for the mind. You hear it, you internalize it, it slowly warps you. We should not tolerate Putin lying to our people or to anyone for that matter.
People think that they're somehow magically immune to propaganda. You are not. Propaganda is like a virus for the mind. You hear it, you internalize it, it slowly warps you. We should not tolerate Putin lying to our people or to anyone for that matter.
I gain nice memes and some schadensfreude when they bitch about their lives.
And what is going to be gained by allowing RT to be uncensored? Their official ""truth"" is that Ukraine is full of/run by Nazis, thus Russia invaded. They've already told the world that. What are you expecting to hear?
Besides, there are other channels for real official truth. Not that Putin will give it.
Besides, there are other channels for real official truth. Not that Putin will give it.
>What are you expecting to hear?
I want to hear what the Russian people are being told, and I don't want to hear that from 'my sides talking heads', I want to hear it from the perspective of the Russian peoples' own media - without an autocratic authority figure well-known for war-profiteering telling me what to think, I'd rather like to make my own judgement.
Are 'we' so stupid as to not trust our own peoples' ability to observe "obvious propaganda" and come away unaffected, or is it rather that, by censoring Russia, we admit that our own education systems have failed so dismally in the West, that we simply can't trust "The Stupid People" not to fall for 'obvious Russian propaganda'?
I think there is very much an autocratic bent to the reasoning so far.
I want to hear what the Russian people are being told, and I don't want to hear that from 'my sides talking heads', I want to hear it from the perspective of the Russian peoples' own media - without an autocratic authority figure well-known for war-profiteering telling me what to think, I'd rather like to make my own judgement.
Are 'we' so stupid as to not trust our own peoples' ability to observe "obvious propaganda" and come away unaffected, or is it rather that, by censoring Russia, we admit that our own education systems have failed so dismally in the West, that we simply can't trust "The Stupid People" not to fall for 'obvious Russian propaganda'?
I think there is very much an autocratic bent to the reasoning so far.
> I want to hear what the Russian people are being told
Me too, but I don't think the Russian people are the main audience for the English, Spanish and French versions of RT. We'll have to rely on translations, from other sources, of the actual Russian news to find out what the Russians are being told.
Me too, but I don't think the Russian people are the main audience for the English, Spanish and French versions of RT. We'll have to rely on translations, from other sources, of the actual Russian news to find out what the Russians are being told.
RT in Europe is in English, not Russian, so it's not what Russian people are being told
So? I still want to see, for myself, what the Russian Propaganda Machine is doing. Why should I be blinded by the prejudices of autocrats?
Besides which .. RT is available in Russian all over Europe, so unless you have further evidence that RT-Europe != RT-Russia, this is irrelevant.
Besides which .. RT is available in Russian all over Europe, so unless you have further evidence that RT-Europe != RT-Russia, this is irrelevant.
After a declaration of war, I think it’s okay to restrict the propaganda arm of the enemy for the same reason that putting up pro-Nazi posters in the middle of London in 1940 would also have been restricted.
Russia is not an enemy of any EU country at this time. If we were at war with Russia, I would entirely agree that blocking their media in the EU is justified, and I also agree that any blocking of their media in Ukraine today is justified.
But outside of literal war, free speech is more important.
But outside of literal war, free speech is more important.
Russia has waged a fairly aggressive indirect war with the EU and the US for a long time, I'm afraid. RT was one of those means, as were network attacks, as was the illegal financing of radical anti-constitutional and anti-democratic parties all over Europe and the US to destabilize political systems, as was the instigation and support of violent groups. Western governments and intelligence agencies have been way too lenient with Russian intelligence efforts in the past 10-20 years.
Now that Russia has introduced a law that can jail journalists with 15 years in prison for mentioning that there is a war in Ukraine, it's plain obvious that RT and other Russian state press has nothing to do with journalism. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember having seen any local language Soviet TV channels officially being broadcast via Western European infrastructure during the Cold War either. You could only watch them e.g. near the border to the GDR... and nothing of value was lost.
Now that Russia has introduced a law that can jail journalists with 15 years in prison for mentioning that there is a war in Ukraine, it's plain obvious that RT and other Russian state press has nothing to do with journalism. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember having seen any local language Soviet TV channels officially being broadcast via Western European infrastructure during the Cold War either. You could only watch them e.g. near the border to the GDR... and nothing of value was lost.
Radio Moscow was available in a lot of languages (64 come the 1970's) back in the days of the Soviet Union. I came across it regularly when "surfing the waves" on my old tube radio back in high school (1980's), the signals were quite strong and that "Moscow Nights" tune made it easy to identify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Moscow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Moscow
Nobody suggests jamming Radio Moscow, though. BBC radio can be received in Russia, too.
Russia literally put a list naming every EU country and others as unfriendly yesterday
Source: https://twitter.com/rianru/status/1500785501309222912
Source: https://twitter.com/rianru/status/1500785501309222912
I tend to agree. But where is the declaration of war by Western governments?
Anyone who does something we don't like is a pretty large set of governments.
Anyone who does something we don't like is a pretty large set of governments.
[deleted]
Haha.
Maybe after Russia answers for war crimes the EU top court can focus on RT ban.
Maybe after Russia answers for war crimes the EU top court can focus on RT ban.
Rule of law must never be transactional. If war crimes have been committed is a matter for other courts to decide. If the RT ban is legitimate, the EU General Court will decide.
We in the west do well to remember not to follow the same kangaroo court structures that we protest when other blocs mix politics with justice.
We in the west do well to remember not to follow the same kangaroo court structures that we protest when other blocs mix politics with justice.
Man, if I'd been in Russia's place, I'd ask for equal treatment.
I.e. wait for court to indicte responsible for drone killings,Yemen, Iraq, etc. I imagine I'd wait quite a lot.
EDIT: Indict -> Indicte
I.e. wait for court to indicte responsible for drone killings,Yemen, Iraq, etc. I imagine I'd wait quite a lot.
EDIT: Indict -> Indicte
Indict, but you're right. The international community has egg on its face from how it is treating Russia vs. how it is not treating Saudi Arabia.
The parallels with the Saudi-Yemen war are many: it's an invasion of a neighboring country in the middle of a civil war under the pretense of stamping out problematic elements that has had a lot of collateral damage. Yet the Saudis get to continue being a member of the United Nations and benefit from their close alliance with the United States.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Russia's punishment is both justified and fair. I just think that it's absurd that they're getting hit with the bat when the Saudis have done the same thing in our very recent past and have faced no real consequences.
The parallels with the Saudi-Yemen war are many: it's an invasion of a neighboring country in the middle of a civil war under the pretense of stamping out problematic elements that has had a lot of collateral damage. Yet the Saudis get to continue being a member of the United Nations and benefit from their close alliance with the United States.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Russia's punishment is both justified and fair. I just think that it's absurd that they're getting hit with the bat when the Saudis have done the same thing in our very recent past and have faced no real consequences.
[deleted]
This is whataboutism; the EU should be upholding its laws, and the International Criminal Courts should uphold theirs. There's no reason to mix the issues.
[deleted]
And hopefully after that they will focus on EU and US war crimes.
They won't focus on US war crimes as they are not a signatory of the ICC and even have a law to "invade" the Haag to extract any US service personal facing such prosecution. [1]
I also expect the US to veto (if they have to, China may do it anyway) any UN security council decision that would make some way for Russia to face war crimes as it will eventually backfire. Especially since the US has been the one vetoing resolutions against Israel on multiple occasions. [2]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_...
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/19/a-history-of-the-us...
I also expect the US to veto (if they have to, China may do it anyway) any UN security council decision that would make some way for Russia to face war crimes as it will eventually backfire. Especially since the US has been the one vetoing resolutions against Israel on multiple occasions. [2]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_...
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/19/a-history-of-the-us...
I was being sarcastic, of course they won't, because they don't care. They only enforce said war crimes against geopolitical enemies such as Russia.
polote(2)
Banning RT was stupid anyway, and makes very very little difference
That’s rich, but I would do the same.
It is very easy for me to compartmentalization legal realities.
Everything is like a virtual machine, it doesn’t matter to me if I use a different rule set or contradictory paradigm in another one, simultaneously.
username
It is very easy for me to compartmentalization legal realities.
Everything is like a virtual machine, it doesn’t matter to me if I use a different rule set or contradictory paradigm in another one, simultaneously.
username